International Relations & Security

Context: India, despite being the fifth-largest holder of rare earth elements, relies heavily on China for imports as it lacks advanced technologies for extraction. 

Amid supply-chain disruptions and security concerns related to China’s dominance in this sector, India is diversifying its sources through agreements with the U.S., Latin American, and African countries to mitigate dependency on China. In this context, Kazakhstan has also emerged as a promising and strategically closer alternative.

Importance of Rare Earth Minerals for India:

• India is fifth largest holder of rare earth minerals (6% of the world’s rare earth reserves); however, it only produces 1% of global output and meets most of its requirements of such minerals from China. 
• REEs contribute towards a total value of nearly $200 billion to the Indian economy. 
• In 2018-19, 92% of rare earth metal imports by value and 97% by quantity were sourced from China.
• Some REEs are available in India which include Lanthanum, Cerium, Neodymium, Praseodymium and Samarium, etc. Monazite and thorium are the principal source of rare earths. 
• Others such as Dysprosium, Terbium, and Europium, which are classified as Heavy REEs (HREE), are not available in Indian deposits in extractable quantities.
• The sector has potential to generate over 10,000 direct and 50,000 indirect jobs through mining and manufacturing.

Challenges facing India in REE Landscape:

• Insufficient domestic production: India is facing the twin burden of insufficient domestic production and increasing demand of REEs from sectors like electronics, defence, and clean energy.
• Global monopoly of China: China accounts for over one-third of the global rare earths’ possession, around 70% of its production, and 90% of refining capacity. With India sourcing around 60% of its imports from China.
• Supply chain disruptions: China’s monopoly in global and Indian rare earth demand leverages its position to dictate supply chain terms. China recently halted the supply of antimony, crucial for flame retardants, solar cells, batteries, and military gear, citing national security concerns.
• Reduced ore supplies from Russia: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has further exposed the risks of concentrated supply chains, resulting in India and Western nations to seek sustainable, diversified alternatives.

In this context, Kazakhstan becomes important:

• Rich source of Rare Earths: Kazakhstan is among the richest sources of rare earth elements (REEs), holding 15 of the 17 known REEs.
• India-Kazakhstan Partnership: Kazakhstan is a close ally of India, and the partnership aligns with India’s 'Connect Central Asia' policy and connectivity projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor.
• Reducing China's dominance: Kax$zakhstan's advanced extraction technologies and collaborations with nations like Japan, Germany, the U.S., South Korea, and the EU present an opportunity to challenge China's monopoly in the rare earth sector.
• Strategic minerals and manufacturing: Kazakhstan is a global leader in producing beryllium, scandium, tantalum, and niobium, which are essential for telecommunications, nuclear reactors, and clean energy. Kazakhstan is also making investments in tungsten, battery materials, magnets, and advanced technologies in lithium and heat-resistant alloys highlighting Kazakhstan’s strategic focus on rare earths and other critical minerals.
• Industrial excellence: Kazakh plants extract critical materials like bismuth, antimony, selenium, tellurium, gallium, and indium, vital for renewable energy and advanced technologies.

Way Forward for India

• Renewable Energy Targets: India’s COP29 pledge to achieve 500 GW of renewable energy by 2030 highlights the importance of REEs like dysprosium for clean energy technologies.
• Diversification: Current over-reliance on China for rare earths highlights the necessity for diversified sourcing, with Kazakhstan offering a viable alternative.
• Collaboration: The proposed ‘India-Central Asia Rare Earths Forum’ is poised to foster private sector investments, joint mining ventures, and sustainable practices.
• Shared expertise: The forum could facilitate bilateral training, shared geological data, and expertise to overcome technological and connectivity challenges.
• Development of regional market: Establishing a regional market through India-Kazakhstan collaboration can reduce reliance on China and enhance resource security for India.

Context: The UN General Assembly (UNGA) has adopted a resolution in December 2024 to bring a comprehensive treaty on Crime Against Humanity. The ongoing debates and discussions at UNGA have raised questions about the Indian stance on the issue. 

Major Highlights:

• UNGA has adopted a resolution approving the text of the proposed treaty governing the crime against humanity (CAH) on the basis of recommendations of the International Law Commission. This marks the beginning of the negotiation process among states for the conclusion of a CAH treaty. 
• Though such crimes (CAH) are covered under the Rome statute, the founding treaty that created the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the need for a new treaty arises due to the gaps in the state's accountability and the individuals under the present mechanism in ICC. 

What is the International Criminal Court?

• ICC is an international tribunal established under the Rome Statute 1998 to address impunity for the gravest crimes threatening the global community.
  • Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries.
• ICC is an independent international organisation and is not part of the United Nations. 
• The seat of ICC is in The Hague, Netherlands.

Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court:

• ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest crimes of international concern,  as defined under the Rome Statute:
  1. Genocide
  2. War Crimes
  3. Crimes against Humanity
  4. Crime of Aggression

What are Crimes Against Humanity?

• The Rome Statute of the ICC includes the most extensive list of crimes against humanity. These can include:
  • Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, torture, rape, sexual slavery.
  • Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender or other grounds.
  • Enforced disappearance of persons, apartheid, other inhumane acts involving serious harm to physical or mental health.

Limitations of International Criminal Court: 

ICC has certain limitations that necessitates the need for a new treaty governing the crime against humanity (CAH). They include: 

• Limited Jurisdiction: ICC can only act in member countries or where crimes are committed by individuals of member countries. It makes it difficult to take actions on perpetrators of crimes in non-member states. E.g., Cannot act on Uyghur genocide as China is not a member.  
• Lack of Executive Power: Does not have police force to enforce arrests. ICC relies on State Parties to apprehend individuals. Trials cannot proceed until the accused is arrested and brought before ICC.
• Perception of Bias: Until January 2016, all nine situations that ICC was investigating were in African countries, leading to withdrawal of Burundi. Accusations of partiality and flawed investigations. E.g., By Philippines. 
• Waning Support: Powerful countries such as India, Israel, Russia, China and the US are not the state parties yet. Actual and threatened withdrawal from ICC indicates waning support. E.g., Withdrawal of Burundi.  
• Threat to Autonomy: US imposed financial sanctions, visa bans on ICC judges in response to investigations against American nationals for alleged atrocities perpetrated in Afghanistan. 

How is the new CAH treaty different from the Rome Statute?

Though, both CAH and Rome statute cover the various crimes against humanity but there are certain differences;

• State's obligation: ICC ensured individual accountability for the crime, but CAH treaty would allow holding the state accountable for the failure to control the crime against humanity. 
• Extending the scope: CAH treaty focuses on extending the scope of crimes including starvation of population, gender apartheid, forced pregnancy, the use of nuclear weapons, terrorism, exploitation of natural resources, and crime against indigenous populations. 

India’s stand on CAH Treaty:

• Reflection of Rome Statute: Indian stand on CAH treaty is often considered as the reflection of its stance on Rome statute i.e., the aversion against Rome Statute and ICC being discriminatory and violative of nation's sovereignty.
  • India's reason for aversion against Rome Statute is also based on non-inclusion of 'usage of nuclear weapon for mass destruction’ as war crime. 
• Stance on Terrorism: India also favours the inclusion of 'terrorism’ as an act amounting to CAH. 
• Focus on domestic litigation: India advocates for the National Courts and National litigations to deal with the CAH and other International crimes. 

Way Forward: In State vs Sajjan Singh case 2018, Delhi High Court has observed that India do bot have a dedicated law to deal with the genocide and crime against humanity. Though India has its valid concerns regarding Rome Statute and proposed CAH treaty, the need of the hour is to come up with the dedicated statutes to deal with such crimes against humanity. This will help India to elevate the human rights status paving the way to become a Vishwaguru. 

Context: Recently, the International Debt Report 2024 was released by the World Bank. Among other trends, the report shows that over 25% of the world’s bilateral external debt was owed to China in 2023, making the country the leading debt collector in the world. This has raised concerns over the debt trap diplomacy used by China.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Debt-trap diplomacy of China: Impacts; some global examples; strategies to deal with debt-trap diplomacy. 

What is Debt Trap Diplomacy?

• Debt trap diplomacy refers to a strategy where a country extends excessive credit to another nation, often leading the latter into a situation where it cannot repay its debts. 
• This can result in the debtor nation being forced to concede control over strategic assets or influence over its domestic and foreign policies to the creditor nation.

Debt Trap Diplomacy leads to:

• Loan Dependency: Countries receiving loans from China often become heavily indebted, making them vulnerable to economic pressures and political influence from Beijing.
• Asset Control: When debtor nations struggle to repay their loans, they may be compelled to cede control over critical infrastructure or resources. A notable example is Sri Lanka, which had to lease its Hambantota Port to a Chinese company for 99 years after failing to repay Chinese loans.
• Strategic Influence: This practice allows China to expand its geopolitical influence in regions such as Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, at the expense of sovereignty.
• Infrastructure Projects: Many of the projects funded by Chinese loans are large-scale infrastructure developments, such as roads, railways, and ports (under BRI). While these can enhance connectivity and growth, they often come with high debt burdens.
• Debt Restructuring: In some cases, China has engaged in debt restructuring negotiations but has been criticized for not being transparent about the terms and conditions of these arrangements.

The strategy has drawn criticism from various quarters, including Western nations and international organisations, which argue that it undermines the financial stability of recipient countries and leads to increased dependency on China.

Countries facing the Debt Trap Burden:

China's debt trap diplomacy has been observed in several countries, where extensive loans for infrastructure projects have led to significant debt burdens. Here are notable examples:

• Sri Lanka: The most cited case is Sri Lanka's Hambantota Port, which was financed by Chinese loans. After failing to repay the debt($ 8 Bn), Sri Lanka had to lease the port to a Chinese company for 99 years, granting China strategic control over a key maritime asset.
• Pakistan: Under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Pakistan has received substantial loans (Owes $22 Bn to China)for infrastructure development. Critics argue that the resulting debt could lead to increased Chinese influence over Pakistan's economy and political decisions.
• Djibouti: China has invested heavily in Djibouti's infrastructure, including the construction of a strategic port. Djibouti's debt to China has raised concerns that it may have to cede control over critical infrastructure if it cannot meet its financial obligations.
• Maldives: The Maldives took on significant debt from China for various projects, including roads and an airport. The previous government faced criticism for this borrowing, which analysts believe could jeopardise the country's sovereignty and lead to increased Chinese influence.
• Angola: The second largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa, owed $17 billion to China, which was about 58% of its external debt.16 sub-Saharan nations owe over 50% of their external debt to China. According to the New York Times, 15 of the 19 cobalt-producing mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo were owned or financed by Chinese firms. The nation owes 88% of its bilateral debt to China.
• Tanzania: A Chinese loan funded the construction of a port in Bagamoyo. However, Tanzania's inability to repay the loan could result in China gaining control over the port and influencing Tanzanian policies.
• Laos: Laos has borrowed extensively from China for rail and hydropower projects. The country is at risk of falling into a debt trap, as it struggles with high levels of debt relative to its GDP.

The affected countries are increasingly seeking alternatives to Chinese financing or negotiating better terms. Some nations are exploring partnerships with other countries or institutions that offer more favorable lending conditions.

Concerns for India:

• Growing Chinese influence: Smaller nations like Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka are at a risk of coming under China’s debt trap. It has increased China's influence in the region to a considerable level which is against India’s desire to emerge as a net security provider in the region.
• Challenge to Indo-Pacific Strategy: The China’s debt trap policy will lead to increase in China's assertiveness which directly challenges the open and peaceful Indo-pacific region.
• Against Sovereignty of India: The Chinese funded projects like China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) which passes through the territory of India are a direct challenge to the sovereignty of India.

Way Forward to deal with Debt Trap Diplomacy:

• Build Back Better World Initiative: The G7 Countries proposed a ‘Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative’ at the 47^th G7 summit to counter China’s BRI.
• Blue Dot Network (BDN): Multi-stakeholder initiative formed by the US, Japan, and Australia to bring together governments, private sector and civil society to promote high-quality, trusted standards for global infrastructure development.
• G7 Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII): It seeks to mobilise private sector investments in infrastructure projects across developing countries, focusing on quality and transparency.
• Bilateral debt restructuring: India is also helping neighbours like Sri Lanka, Maldives to restructure debt.
• Expanded Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (EQPI) initiative: Under this program, Japan pledged to finance around $200 billion in infrastructure projects with a focus on natural resources, energy, and other sectors.